Letter signed by 1,000 priests: same-sex marriage will restrict freedom of Catholics

Mgr Keith Newton celebrated mass at the church of Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory(Photo: Mazur/catholicchurch.org.uk)

Letter to Telegraph says legislation would erode ability of faithful to 'participate fully' in public life

More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter to the Daily Telegraph arguing that same-sex marriage will restrict the freedom of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage.

The letter, signed by eight bishops, four abbots, the leader of the ordinariate, and 1,000 priests, warned MPs that proposed legislation would signal a return to penal times in that it would erode the ability of Catholics to “participate fully in the life of this country”.

It said the legislation would “have many legal consequences, severely restricting the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or places of worship”.

The letter also suggested the safeguards of the law would be “meaningless”. It ended with a call to MPs “not to be afraid to reject this legislation now that its consequences are more clear”.

We have to understand the difference between religious morality and secular morality.
Religious morality is applicable to those who choose to follow a particular religion (God says so); secular morality is applicable to everybody (it’s wrong if it harms other people).

Eating pork is immoral for Muslims and Jews because they consider that God has forbidden it. Followers of these religions can self-impose this morality on themselves, but not necessarily on the rest of us. It is not immoral in a secular sense because it doesn’t harm other people (it harms the pig, of course, but I would leave that argument for another time).

Working on a Sunday is another example – we may disapprove of it, but we have to allow those who don’t agree with our point of view the right to do so, so long as their working doesn’t harm others.

Stealing is immoral both in the religious and secular sense. It is immoral in a religious sense because all the major religions forbid it, and in a secular sense because it clearly harms other people. The same can be said for acts of violence, and lying or slandering.

Society has to make its rules around secular morality simply because not everybody shares our set of beliefs, and they have a perfect right not to share them, whether we like it or not.

Same-sex marriage is clearly immoral in a Catholic sense (forbidden by God in Leviticus as well as other places), but is it immoral in a secular sense? Would same-sex marriage harm other people? Can we justify banning it in a secular sense?

I cannot, with the best will in the world, see how it can be immoral in a secular sense, so we really have to let it go. We have to allow others to disagree with us, no matter how much it pains us. If the law says that our churches are exempt from having to conduct same-sex marriages, then I don’t hink we can really argue against it form a secular point of view.

Surely there are more pressing problems for the Church than whether homosexuals can get married or not. Let’s move on and fight more important battles.

Marcus_cole

The problem is that many of these men show too much of their balls!

I’m in no way in that Catholic loop which is the inner circle but even I on the periphery can spot at least 7 names on this list of men who are in regular relationships of a sexual nature, both gay and straight.

So before they start sticking their heads up above that parapet and – as the charming Mr Carter would say – showing their balls, then they should perhaps be put on notice that the stench of their hypocrisy may become too strong for some people to bear….

Kevin

“secular morality is applicable to everybody”

Why? Who decides what “secular morality” is?

“it’s wrong if it harms other people”

Define “harm”. Does consent negate all harm? What about sado-masochism? If sado-masochism is not harmful, how does one distinguish domestic violence?
If consent is not the measure of morality, what about killing in the form of assisted suicide?
What about infanticide? If infanticide is not acceptable why is abortion legal?
If “pain” is the measure, what about killing someone who is under anaesthetic or asleep or drunk?
What if you signed a contract? Should caveat emptor apply? What if the document you signed is a living will and you now lack mental capacity? Killing you now, for example by withdrawing food and fluids, would probably be physically harmful, but it is legal in this country.

Kevin

It is interesting that the Telegraph was prompted to compare Cameron’s redefinition of marriage with the legal changes introduced by Henry VIII.

Since their emancipation two centuries ago, Catholics have not been forced to teach that another corruption of marriage – divorce – is morally acceptable.

Cameron is indeed ushering in a new era of persecution.

GratefulCatholic

You’ve missed the point, which is; homosexual law reformers here do not just want to have their mates “married”, they will have all the legal architecture of human rights/UN/EU that crimps others prior rights that disagree with them. Like Catholic adoption services having to close after homo’s secured legal adoptions and of course adoption was a key part of Catholic action against abortion. There is real Evil behind these initiatives.
GC

David

Whilst I agree that the current proposals are a dire threat, the list of signatories is not altogether impressive.

Sweetjae

Freedom to practice one’s religion is already restricted nowadays. A clergy of the Church or a Christian can not preach against homosexuality and gay-marriage without being thrown to litigation and ridiculed. This the is very essence of V2 on Religious Freedom.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Marco-Luxe/100002339370351 Marco Luxe

I was appalled at the lies in letter to the Telegraph. It stated a SSM law would
“severely restrict[ ] the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage
in their schools, charitable institutions or places of worship.” This is just a
hyperbolic scare tactic that diminishes a presumed reputation for speaking the
truth. In the Prop 8 campaign in California in 2008, an LDS attorney publicly
pleaded for the LDS hierarchy to retract the falsehoods they spread, claiming
they must win with the truth, or the lies will come back to eviscerate their
authority. He was proven correct. The LDS lies have been exposed, and the church
has been mocked using their own false propaganda. Members are fleeing to new
groups that embrace the truth. Have these RCC clergymen encouraged the trend by
bearing false witness?

scary goat

Agreed. The problem isn’t who can “marry” whom, it’s about all the legal “equality” stuff that will go with it. The question is will it now become illegal for our schools to teach traditional marriage or will we be forced under discrimination laws to teach same-sex-marriage?

Rich

‘crimps others prior rights that disagree with them’

Sorry fella, I don’t understand this bit, can you enlarge on this please? I honestly don’t feel my marriage is impacted by this, perhaps you could enlighten me?

scary goat

Yes, God bless these good priests. But why aren’t there more?

KJ

There is also real Evil behind heaping abuse on other people.

The Church teaches us that gay people have the same intrinsic worth and deserve the same respect as everyone else. But when so many Christians show nothing but hatred towards them as evidenced by the use of dismissive and derogatory words like “homo”, is it any wonder that the world at large condemns all of us for intolerance and bigotry?

The bishops should basically get a life. Catholics are not being persecuted when prevented from persecuting others. That kind of freedom can and should be restricted for the benefit of all.

GratefulCatholic

Rich, it’s not your actual marriage that will be impacted (although it can be argued that the whole institution is hereby treated with contumely), it is your right to hold to Catholic teaching that’s impacted. Hence my example of adoption. Scary Goat probably explains it better than me below.
Regards, GC

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QJKL72QRSDWKYKUJG62PC3COCI Agusti

The key is the family, the family is the place where most clear we can feel the love and grow up surrounded of love, then the family is a testimony of the love of God. The devil has always tried to destroy this institution.

GratefulCatholic

So St Peter and St Paul are Evil for calling Filth as it is? These people, homosexuals, can redeem themselves through repentance and be saved in Jesus Christ – and I hope they do, pray for it every day in fact. It’s what they do that is beyond the pale and that is what their sponsors at law are trying to force Catholics to accept. Not having it.

Paul

‘Would same sex marriage harm other people?’

Johnnylee2, let me tell you just a tiny fraction of the harm that same sex marriage will do to other people if it becomes law.
Countless millions of men will spend their best years looking for their true life partners among women, and will never find them. Countless millions of women will be in the same predicament in regard to their men. Countless millions of children will be either robbed of their lives altogether, or will be forced to grow up without the family structure they need.

These are only the tip of the iceberg of the terrible curse that will come upon any society that takes this horrifying step. May it never happen to us.

clee

Definitely a positive and hopeful signal in defense of the teachings of the Mother Church. Liberal church-men, please take note of your erroneous positions you harbor.

GratefulCatholic

If what you say is true Mc then it is scandalous. Your duty now is to out them all.
GC

teigitur

Talk is cheap.

KJ

Need I quote the catechism at you, GratefulCatholic? Need I tell you that we’re enjoined to treat ALL OTHERS with respect and dignity?

You may feel that what gay people do is beyond the pale, but that’s no excuse for verbally abusing them. If you can’t treat even the worst of sinners with basic human dignity then you’re not abiding by Church teachings. And if you don’t abide by Church teachings, are you even a Catholic?

Take note of Matthew 7:21 and ponder its meaning. You can pray for whomever you like, but if your heart is full of pride and disdain for your fellow man and you think of them as “filth”, is your sin any less heinous than theirs?

And speaking of acceptance, as Catholics we’re forced to accept many things we don’t like. The law of the land forces us to accept divorce, abortion and many other things expressly condemned by the Church. This is the price we pay for living in a secular society where the majority does not adhere to our faith. We can’t impose it on them, so we have no choice but to accept that other people will do things we don’t agree with. Equal marriage laws will just add one more thing to that list. If you can accept working and living alongside divorced and remarried couples, Muslims, Atheists, Protestants, Mormons and people who use contraception, why can’t you extend the same grace to gay couples?

Honestly, I find nothing inspiring about your attitude at all. No wonder young people flee from the Church and no wonder they associate Christianity with homophobia and bigotry of all sorts. The faith really has reached a low point when Christians can call their fellow man “filth” and believe that they’re doing God’s work.

KJ

Is it illegal for Catholic schools to teach that divorce is contrary to the will of God? Divorce is legal. It happens in Catholic families. It’s even discussed in Catholic schools. Are teachers therefore being persecuted and oppressed because they have to discuss divorce?

There’s nothing in the law that will force Catholic teachers to advocate gay marriage. All they’ll have to do is acknowledge it exists, explain what it means and then relate the Church’s teaching on the subject, just as they do with divorce, contraception, abortion, Islam, Protestantism and anything else.

All this talk of Catholic persecution is just so much twaddle. And twaddle that everyone sees through as well. Shrieking about persecution while you persecute others is the worst kind of hypocrisy. How did it come to this?

GratefulCatholic

Mat.7:21 “but he that doth the will of my Father”, is this really what you think you are doing by supporting homosexual acts?
And you misrepresent me: I did not say homosexuals were Filth, I said I prayed for them daily – what they do is Filth. So say the Prophets, Disciples, the Gospel writers and even the Catechism (2537) says it is a grave depravity and intrinsically disordered. You question my Cathlocity! I am the one defending the Faith here – I do not accept abortion and the other outrages you list. “this is the price we pay”, speak for yourself. The more people who do that “flee the church”, the better.
GC

KJ

Well, if you don’t accept the other things I was talking about, why aren’t you out campaigning for laws against them?

Who knows, maybe you are. Maybe you’d love to see laws against divorce and Islam and Protestantism. From your tone, it really wouldn’t surprise me.

Yes, the catechism says that gay sex is a grave depravity and that gay people are intrinsically disordered. It does not say that what they do is filth. That comes from you, not from God or the Church.

In any case, a law allowing gay marriage will not prevent us from practicing our faith any more than laws allowing divorce, abortion or a Protestant established church prevent us from practicing our faith. We will not be persecuted or deprived of any freedoms. We will still be free to accept or reject whatever we like.

There are no freedoms at stake here. Not for Catholics at least.

Patrick_Hadley

KJ is right. The Catholic teaching on marriage is already fundamentally contradicted by the state, which allows “re-marriage” after divorce. For every gay “marriage” that is not recognised by the Church there will be at least ten “marriages” between men and women that are not recognised because one of the parties had previously been married to someone else. Are we persecuted as a result of this? Are we prevented from teaching that marriage is indissoluble?

The use of the word “persecution” is total nonsense, and it is a great shame that so many priests did not notice this before they signed the letter. There has been a lamentable decline in the academic quality of our priests, and a big reduction in the amount of philosophy they learn, but I did not realise that things had become so bad.

Marcie

Mr Cole, if you are certain that there are priests involved in sexual relationships, you should be reporting them to their bishops. If you don’t, you are complicit in the offence.

monkton47

Yes, why aren’t my present and former parish priests there? And there don’t seem to be many Jesuits. Does the fact that they didn’t sign mean that they don’t (completely?) agree?

GratefulCatholic

For Goodness sake KJ, read some English legal history and of the life and death of Blessed Martyrs like St Edmund Campion.
GC

Yorkshire Catholic

. Bad logic. The two cases are not comparable. There is no political
movement of divorced people using the legal system to suppress criticism
of them as “divorcophobia”. Divorce in any case is a practice which,
although forbidden by the Catholic Church, is recognized as possible and has happened throughout the ages. Gay marriage
radically changes the meaning of the word marriage. If Catholic
teachers tell their students that gay marriage is impossible,
homosexuality a sin, and therefore that practicing homosexuals are by
implication sinners, they will certainly face legal and practical
sanctions against them

JabbaPapa

We have to understand the difference between religious morality and secular morality.
Religious morality is applicable to those who choose to follow a particular religion (God says so); secular morality is applicable to everybody (it’s wrong if it harms other people).

Of course we need to understand the difference — but you yourself obviously don’t.

First, you implicitly claim that religious and secular morality are identical, by claiming that religious morality varies from one religion to the next, just as it varies from one society to the next.

Second, you appear to falsely imagine that “religious” morality can be changed by popular consensus, as if your confused concept of the nature of morality were true, except it isn’t.

These are a modernist conception, and therefore participate in that heresy.

1) There is a difference between morality derived from God or from the Spirituality, and those derived from the particular moral teachings of each individual religion.

2) Moral teachings from God or the broader Spirituality are non-negociable by nature

3) Moral teachings provided by the specific religions are non-negociable for (separate) religious reasons, even though they may in some cases by historically contingent.

You are letting yourself be deceived by the propaganda of its proponents, hence why you are participating in this propaganda by spreading it yourself.

In fact, statements in Leviticus and so on about sodomy are of only a marginal bearing on this question — whereas marriage is in fact the union (before God and His Church) of man and wife for the main purpose of creating a family (there are some secondary purposes).

You are, nevertheless, directly preaching against the teachings of the Holy Church in this matter, and basing these preachings on the modernist heresy.

Patrick_Hadley

But all that has nothing at all to do with the issue of gay “marriage”. The relentless drive to assert that homosexual sex is normal would carry on even if gay “marriage” never comes about.

Does anyone really think that if there is no legal gay “marriage” the secular promotion of gay lifestyles will end?

It is totally illogical to suggest that because the state allows gay “marriage” it would mean that the Church would not be able to deny their validity. We have at least 100 years experience of the Church denying the validity of millions of marriages between men and women, and frankly hardly anybody who is “re-married” after a divorce could care less. I am sure that will continue after gay “marriage” with most people ignoring the Church’s opinion.

JabbaPapa

The Mormons are a pseudo-christian sect, that spreads lies about God and our Christ.

And you’re surprised that they were caught lying ?

OTOH, the statement that “a SSM law would severely restrict[ ] the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their schools, charitable institutions or places of worship” is quite obviously both reasonable and correct, based as it is on the knowledge of how such restrictions do actually exist in other places where such laws have been enacted.

If anything, you yourself are spreading lies by describing this argument as a “hyperbolic scare tactic”.

London (CNN) — A British Christian woman suffered
religious discrimination when British Airways told her not to wear a
visible cross over her uniform, a top European court ruled Tuesday.

…

British Airways violated
the article of the European Convention on Human Rights that guarantees
freedom of religion when it stopped employee Nadie Eweida wearing her
cross openly, the court said.

Eweida said she
experienced discrimination from 2006 to 2007, when she started wearing
the cross visibly and was transferred to another job.

—

as for this question as to whether people will be actively prevented from obeying the Catholic religious requirements of our Faith :

“In each case the employer was pursuing a policy of nondiscrimination
against service-users, and the right not to be discriminated against on
grounds of sexual orientation was also protected under the Convention.”

Therefore, those denying that homosexual couples can be “married” WILL be persecuted for their religious beliefs under the European Law, exactly as is being claimed.

TheBlueWarrior

I don’t mean to get in the middle of your on-going discussion, but it seems to me that when a Catholic doctor has to choose between performing abortions or withdrawing from the medical profession; a Catholic chemist has to choose between prescribing a “morning after” pill or withdrawing from the profession, and eventually, a Catholic primary school teacher having to choose between teaching “same-sex marriage” as having equality to marriage as we now know it, or stop being a teacher, then I’d say there are fundamental freedoms at stake. Practicing the faith is more than attending Mass on Sunday, it permeates all of our interactions with society. Western civilization has been fundamentally shaped by Christian thought and philosophy for over at least 1600 years. In the last sixty years there’s a counter-philosophy that is aggressively being promoted/imposed on societies across the west. It’s not happenstance, it’s organized and funded by proponents of the counter-philosophy. The implication that Catholics should either mold their consciences to the prevailing philosophy or withdraw from the professional life ought to be a source of considerable consternation.

By the way, I’ve never had my children bring home a reading book singing the praises of adultery or divorce, yet it looks like places where “same-sex marriage” has become law, the primary schools have started utilizing story books promoting homosexual relationships. Wait til parents object to that and see what happens.

Sweetjae

In the name of tolerance you and your kind don’t tolerate those who disagree with your morality by calling them bigots and all sort of names, so who really is bearing false witness here?

Sweetjae

Of you have solid evidence then go report to their bishops and civil authorities but don’t put accusations that are based on gossips and lump them as one as many liberal media hooligans have been doing.

Christopher Murray

And same sex marriage is a perversion of natural law [ a forgotten concept as a result of relativism.] And ‘moving on ‘ also misses the point. Catholics are not relativists !

Christopher Murray

And shall we one day ‘move on’ by accepting pedophiles or fratricide [oh yes , these arguments are coming .] ? Sorry, if I’m unchristian but I am getting a bit sick of the ignorant giving advice especially in this paper . I can avoid it in the Guardian , Evn Standard etc. If you are not Catholic what are you doing here ?

scary goat

Good luck with the reporting Mc. You’ll be needing some rather large proverbials.

‘We have to understand’ that ‘Let’s move on’ and ‘because it doesn’t [sic] harm other people’ is a liberal position [John Stewart Mill ] , and some would says leads to a libertine position in social values. Gay marriage will certainly ‘do harm to others’ , for example , demands for the NHS to provide donor insemination and surrogacy for gay ‘married’ couples. [already happening] http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/LGBhealth/Pages/Havingchildren.aspx

Catholics who then refuse to participate would face the sack despite the alleged ‘ safeguards ‘. [ You just have to look to the culture minister yesterday calling for the sacking of Julie Birchell for her criticism of transvestites in yesterday’s Guardian.] Teachers too would face dismissal for refusal to teach ‘inclusive’ marriage . [ how could one ‘teach marriage’ but exempting certain groups that the law allowed . Do you think you will explain to one’s headteacher and they say ‘ that’s all right then I’ll employ a part timer for those lessons’ . Really ? In this way [ and others] the state will impact on one’s belief as a Christian. And what are these beliefs ? Shouldn’t they ‘move on’.

I could not care less what gays do , or want to do. If they choose to go to hell that is their business. So for me its not a question of moral outrage. But this proposed law affects me and everyone else. I am old enough to remember 1968 , at the time when gay lib was founded at my university , the then spokesperson said ‘ repeal this act [against gay relationships] and you will never hear from us again , or know that we exist. All we want is to live in peace.’ Do you think gay ‘ marriage’ is the end ?

You see , Christians are not moral relativists , I quote

John
Haldane, a softly-spoken Scots academic from St Andrews … and
fellow-traveler Catholic, put forward the proposition that the
fundamental cultural debate is between one collection of ideas,
called ‘the anti-realists’, and another, those of ‘the
realists’, and that this cultural tension is manifest in political
and social policy. Real ideas … contained at their core the notion
that the universe is natural, objectively ‘out there’, knowable
but distinct, and informing views on sexuality, sex, marriage, death,
etc. Anti-realist ideas, by contrast, consider everything as human
constructs, plastic and malleable, which can be bended and altered
but which inherently are unknowable. Realism and anti-realism contain
fundamentally different understandings about what is knowable and
what is not, what can be change and what cannot, and mankind’s
place in creation.

Gay ‘marriage’ is an untruth against natural law of nature , against truth.

scary goat

And why the picture of the priests of Clifton diocese? Just wondering.

Tridentinus

What do we understand by morality? Can there seriously be a plurality of moralities and how many of these different moralities can there be or are they infinite? It would seem from your argument (Catholic and Secular moralities) that the latter is what you are advocating whether you realise it or not.
Morality pertains to, or is concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. For Catholics what is right and what is wrong is absolute, unchangeable and universal. Secular morality is relative, conditional and variable depending upon where one happens to live in the world. These ‘moralities’ differ enormously from country to country and even from province to province within a country.
Compare the recent ‘moralities’ imposed upon their subjects by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, North Korea and many more in Africa and South America with the currently ‘reasonable’ legistlation in Europe and the US before we go deeper into past societies. Even now in 2 or 3 countries in Europe euthanasia is legal and therefore moral according to you, whereas in the rest of the Continent it is illegal. How do ‘you’ decide which is the right or wrong policy and when you decide how do you know that you have made the right or the wrong decision?
Are you actually advocating that the State, the Monarch, the Dictator, the Ruling Party, the Assembly or the Parliament are the sole arbiters of what is right and wrong?
In the civilised world for nearly 2 millenia morality has been based upon Judaeo-Christian ethics, upon an ‘universal’ consensus of what was right or wrong. The first fracture came with the Reformation when so-called ‘free-thinking’ began to split Christendom although ‘cujus princeps, ejus religio’ eventually prevailed. Morality was not at first compromised apart from whether clergy could marry or not.
Right up to Victorian times Protestant and Catholic moral teaching was virtually indistinguishable. Then the rot set in; the C of E caved in on the issue of artificial contraception and then on abortion. This precipitated a headlong slide into the common acceptance of the belief that sexual intercourse was primarily recreational and not necessarily for the procreation of children. Subsequent C of E decisions to bow to secular trends, women deacons, women priests even women bishops, an acceptance of homosexuality amongst the laity with a vain proscription for clergy. Now there is a debate as to whether homosexuals can become bishops even though they can be ordained priest and as laymen can practise their religion and their vice without let or hindrance.
Whilst the C of E has actually very few devout adherents in the country it is the State Church and its pronouncements do not go unnoted amongst the general public. Vatican II subtly and surreptitiously released Catholics from obedience to their Church yet allowed them to continue the pseudo practise of their faith as they saw fit in the modern world. Catholics responded by their outright rejection of virtually everything the Church had stood for for the last 2000 years. Instead it followed the Protestants. Artificial contraception is globally practised despite ‘Humanae Vitae. Overwhelming numbers of Catholics see nothing wrong with masturbation, fornication, remarriage after civil divorce, homosexual acts, civil partnerships and even ‘same-sex marriages’ despite the Church’s steadfast and absolute condemnation of each and everyone of these sins or sinful states.
Catholic morality is uniquely grounded in absolute values, every other ‘morality’ depends upon the various and differing beliefs or opinions of those who hold them and as such is floating, conditional, relative and therefore valueless.

liquafruta

What a pity that 1000 priests haven’t got together before this and tried to fight all the dreadful things that currently go on in the world..war, famine,human trafficking and injustice,the plight of prisoners in African gaols …but no – it has to be more fixation on sex. It is really very sad and is sending a negative message to people who are not Catholics that we are a one issue church.

http://twitter.com/alangnixon Alan Nixon

What? So it’s OK to ‘restrict the freedom’ of Gay people to marry, but its not OK to ‘restrict the freedom’ of Catholics to indoctrinate others with their views (what other freedom would this restrict exactly?). A gay person’s right to full societal participation is more important than the Catholic groups right to indoctrination (Which as far as I can see, is not a right in any way). Society in general disagrees with many Catholic teachings, does this restrict the ability of Catholics to foist those ideas on children? Unfortunately not.

Roger

the Lord always prevent His Church from error even when her ministers failed to live the gospel fully. Long live the Church of Rome!!!!…Keep up the work my fellow brother priest…Fr.Roger (Diocese of Kingston Jamaica)

Parasum

That is a very sweeping statement – like saying “All Irish Catholics are terrorists”. Encouraging people to see others as threats or enemies is an odd kind of love of neighbour. What will happens if these predictions are *not* fulfilled ? Gay people are not a Church – there is no more reason for all to favour gay marriage, than there is for all Catholics to go duck-shooting. And indeed, one of the arguments against gay marriage has been, that not all gay people want it. So treating all gay people as “homosexual law reformers” is misleading. If OTOH “homos” [sic] & “homosexual law reformers” are *not* meant to mean the same thing, that is not exactly made clear.

BTW, “homos” is still a derogatory term – what happened to all that “respect and sensitivity” the CCC talks about ?

Parasum

“But when so many Christians show nothing but hatred towards them as evidenced by the use of dismissive and derogatory words like “homo”, is it any wonder that the world at large condemns all of us for intolerance and bigotry?”